Obama Insults Republicans and Brags About Winning

New tone?

President Obama warned Republicans on Capitol Hill today that they need to quit listening to radio king Rush Limbaugh if they want to get along with Democrats and the new administration.

“You can’t just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done,” he told top GOP leaders, whom he had invited to the White House to discuss his nearly $1 trillion stimulus package.

One White House official confirmed the comment but said he was simply trying to make a larger point about bipartisan efforts.

“There are big things that unify Republicans and Democrats,” the official said. “We shouldn’t let partisan politics derail what are very important things that need to get done.”

That wasn’t Obama’s only jab at Republicans today.

While discussing the stimulus package with top lawmakers in the White House’s Roosevelt Room, President Obama shot down a critic with a simple message.

“I won,” he said, according to aides who were briefed on the meeting. “I will trump you on that.”

Did he really think that anyone in the room didn’t know that he won?  He does realize that they won their elections too and are representing the voters of their districts, right?  Obama is setting the tone, alright.  His way or the highway. 

1. Because George W. Bush bragging about his “political capital” in 2004 was the epitome of comity.

   Posted by folkbum on January 24, 2009 at 0057 hrs




2. Sorry Jay, but Obama has brought it to a new art form.  At least with Bush, much to the disgust with conservatives, tried to work with the Dem’s.  Doesn’t sound like Obama and his spirit of bi-partianship is willing to do that.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2009 at 0239 hrs




3. Remember:  Bipartisanship is doing it the Democrat’s way.  otherwise you’re obstructionist.

   Republicans need to grow a set.

   Posted by Steve on January 24, 2009 at 0559 hrs




4. Rush is right, this guy is a thug and wait it’s going to get worst.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2009 at 0903 hrs




5. And President Bush didn’t tell the Dems to stop listening to NPR or Air America ...

   Posted by hsgbdmama on January 24, 2009 at 0912 hrs




6. “There are big things that unify Republicans and Democrats,”

   Starting with an unbridled desire for more power.

   Posted by dad29 on January 24, 2009 at 0938 hrs




7. Everyone is talking about Atlas Shrugged, personally, I think Animal Farm is a closer fit.

   Sounds like we are up to about Chapter 5….  it gets uglier from here.

   
   “No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?”
   - George Orwell, Animal Farm, Ch. 5

   “Napoleon is always right.”
   - George Orwell, Animal Farm, Ch. 5

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2009 at 0946 hrs




8. “You can’t just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done,”

   If a conservative said this, would anyone be offended?

   He’s factually correct.  Conservatives can’t just listen to Rush Limbaugh. 

   And President Bush didn’t tell the Dems to stop listening to NPR or Air America ...

   President Obama didn’t tell anyone to stop listening to Rush.  He said you can’t “just” listen to Rush.

   “I won,” he said, according to aides who were briefed on the meeting. “I will trump you on that.”

   lol…  i don’t see the outrage.  I’ve said cockier things since I got up this morning.

   I’m locked and loaded (figuratively) to shoot at the decisions or proposals our president makes that I don’t think are good for this country. (and I know he’s got a bundle of them)

   But I’m saving my ammunition on this one.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2009 at 1007 hrs




9. Yeah, I mean, Obama did win the election. Democrats in Congress also made big gains on top of the gains made in 2006. I don’t expect Republicans who are still in Congress to go away and shut up, but then again, I don’t expect Democrats to give Repubs much of what they want, either. If the policies that Democrats implement do not produce good results in a few years, then they will be voted out of office. If they do well, they will maintain power.

   But that’s going to be the case whether they listen to Republicans or not.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2009 at 1033 hrs




10. Two things:

    1. Obama’s reply was “I won. I will trump you on that.” What did the critic say to elicit that response? Without knowing that, we can’t know how cocky or inappropriate the remark was.

    2. Anyone who listens to Rush Limbaugh is an unthinking idiot. The man is the world’d biggest hypocrite. He ranted in favor of the war on drugs and advocated harsh sentences for users and dealers, WHILE HE WAS ILLEGALLY USING NARCOTICS HIMSELF. Several years ago, he said that anyone who wants the President to fail is a traitor, and yet this week HE SAID HE WANTS THE PRESIDENT TO FAIL. Wake up people; this man is not helping the conservative cause. People on the left who let Oprah tell them what to read and what to think are just as bad. Use the brain God gave you.

    Posted by Ordinary Jill on January 24, 2009 at 1101 hrs




11. LOL.

    Owen, the idea that you’d have this same complaint had a Republican won is laughable. Predictably, you’re capitalizing on absolutely any opportunity to paint Obama in a bad light regardless of whether you’d have the same complaint about a Republican. Why not just post, “Obama is bad” and take the next 2 years off until the race for ‘12 starts?

    I listen to Limbaugh on occasion and the man is both funny and scary. His, uh, devotion (fanatacism) is either a great act or evidence of serious emotional problems. I’m guessing a little of both, though he exhibits the classic need of weak-minded people to belong to something and to have an “other” to fight against to give their lives meaning.

    If only he had the same devotion to his, what, three ex-wives? Oh but gays are the real threat to our cultural values.

    I think it was Thursday or maybe yesterday he was prattling on about how presidents throughout history have always sought more power for their branch vis-a-vis Congress. This is factually inaccurate - Presidents between Lincoln and Wilson generally accepted a caretaker role and wanted little power, ceding most major decisions to Congress.

    I do look forward to the coming trend on his show that has already begun here, championing the minority Republicans’ efforts to stop the majority’s agenda. A practice that only 2 years ago drew bitter complaining about obstructing the will of the people.

    Ain’t it funny how that works? I mean seriously, when you people are making arguments today that are the opposite of what you were arguing today, you do know it don’t you? I mean you’re not deluded enough where you don’t realize you’re using hypocrisy, are you?

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2009 at 1115 hrs




12. The usual, “weak-minded”, “belong to something”, “other to fight” drivel.  All while doing exactly those things.  You’re just SO open-minded.  I pretty sure it’s YOUR brain that’s fallen out.

    The media now refers to it as “obstruction”, but never made that reference to Democrats during the Bush years.  I’m looking forward to the media putting a body count out there evvery day, too.  This is now Mr. Obama’s war.  He has the choice to continue or bail.  Guess which he’ll choose?

    Ok…here’s some red meat for ya….“Obama Is Bad”.

    Posted by Steve on January 24, 2009 at 1123 hrs




13. That’s interesting JJ.

    I happened to have reread the Farm last weekend.

    Certainly a lot of projecting/correlating you can apply from a variety of perspectives.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2009 at 1215 hrs




14. Those who defended Bush for doing similar things are showing their hypocritical side as well. What happened to the idea that we want our President (no matter which party), which means our country, to succeed. Rush Limbaugh is a liar and those that listen to “just” Limbaugh are jaded to put it nicely.

    We are in a mess. Obama did not create this mess. Why would anyone wish for his failure which would mean our failure?

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2009 at 1258 hrs




15. His failure does not mean our failure if his success further bloats the bureaucracy and moves us closer to socialism.  His plan must fail if it socializes healthcare (which hasn’t worked anywhere, except at ridiculous cost).  His plan must fail if it increases an already burdensome tax and regulatory system.

    The government has thrown $1 Trillion at the problem to no avail.  What makes us think throwing more money at the problem is going to fix it?  In it’s current state and the proposed future state, it does nothing.

    Posted by Steve on January 24, 2009 at 1303 hrs




16. This is really funny, listening to the party of Tom “the Hammer” DeLay, Dick (Go f*** yourself) Cheney, George (I have political capital and I intend to spend it) Bush, and Donald (you go to war with the army you have) Rumsfeld whining about something as innocuous as “I won.”

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2009 at 1306 hrs




17. apc misses the point again.  Your side made such an enormous deal about Cheney, et al, then goes and does the same thing.  It’s not innocuous.  It’s in-your-face-screw-any-bipartisanship-ideas-you-might-have-h ad powerplay stuff.  After all the talk of a new bipartisan tone.

    If Democrats had any standards, I’d say they were hypocrites.  But since they don’t I guess I just don’t have a case.

    Posted by Steve on January 24, 2009 at 1313 hrs




18. But - I thought that Obama was different!  That he was post-partisan! 

    All that is being pointed out is that he is just like every other politician.  America is just as divided as it was 5 days ago.  There is no Change here.  Unless you consider throwing more trillions of dollars after the trillions already thrown at this and thinking you will get a different result just because it is Obama throwing it change.  Well - I suppose the further devaluation of the dollar and hyper-inflation will be some change.  But I don’t think that is particularly what everyone who voted for him had in mind.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2009 at 1320 hrs




19. He is at work everyday and will continue to do so. He will not change the world in 5 days. What did G.W. do for the last 2 years? You can blame the last 2 years on the divided congress but when he had full party control he pushed us backwards in many ways.
    We never heard you criticize Bush for these things yet you throw out the hypocrisy label in the first five days. Look in the mirror.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2009 at 1327 hrs




20. Bush did not run on - nor did any of his supporters believe - in Hope and Change as a platform.

    5 days just seems a bit soon to be abandoning all the hype of the same.

    Obama isn’t the messiah, Bush wasn’t the anti-christ.  They are both men. 
    I didn’t vote for Obama, but I can’t say I’m sad that McCain lost.  I do predict however, that a lot of other independents or even conservatives that voted for Obama because they really thought he would govern from the middle will have buyer’s remorse very shortly.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2009 at 1338 hrs




21. Um, Steve, our healthcare system costs more than any other country’s, also per capita. Yet it leaves millions of people out, while health outcomes are better in other countries. But you’re right, health care reform will totally screw us!!

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2009 at 1359 hrs




22. JJ - most people that voted for Obama could not tell you what currency devaluation or hyperinflation means even if their life depended on it.

    The presidential election has become like voting for Prom King.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2009 at 1405 hrs




23. Steve,

    I don’t have an “other” to fight nor a cause to belong to. Unlike you, people like you and partisan hacks on the other side I don’t have an emotional attachment to ideology that causes me to feel threatened when people attack it or there’s evidence that it doesn’t work.

    And unlike you I’m not pathetic enough to blame everything on the media. Ohh, the media are so unfair. They’re out to get me. They work totally for the other side. Everyone is crazy and only I’ve figured out everything blah blah blah.

    I can go to Kos or Plaisted and see the exact same crap from people who are just as emotionally attached as you.

    Take your rant about socialized medicine. You complain it doesn’t work and costs too much. Yet every objective measure shows that countries that have it spend less and yet are healthier than us. I actually don’t support fully socialized medicine either, I think there’s probably a hybrid system that may work even better, but unlike you I don’t ignore those facts as a personal attack on my brainless ideology.

    Finally, your post (#17) to apc. Again the reference to “your side” and all its dirty tricks as if you actually believe your side doesn’t engage in the same. I seem to remember some Governor got elected President promising to “change the tone” in Washington. How’d that go? Did the GOP Congress take the high road and not retaliate against the Dems for shutting them out when they finally gained the majority in ‘94? Did GOP hacks like Limbaugh and Hannity have respectful disagreements with Clinton or Dems in Congress, or did they make it personal by claiming they hate America, coddle terrorists, blah blah blah?

    So I’m going to ask you point blank, you think either side takes the high road? You think only one side has the license on dirty tricks, hypocrisy, idiotic arguments, ignoring inconvenient facts, and other childish behavior?

    In sum, other than reliving childish tit-for-tat bullshit from high school, why in God’s name would I even consider giving a rip about either party?

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2009 at 1411 hrs




24. JJ - most people that voted for Obama could not tell you what currency devaluation or hyperinflation means even if their life depended on it.

    The national debt has doubled under George Bush and the value of the dollar has shrunk. Will it now be Obamas fault alone or will both sides work toward fixing it? Look at the retirement funds and it will tell the story. Why does the blame fall on Obama alone? We all know it will get worse before it gets better.
    Hope is all we have at this point.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2009 at 1415 hrs




25. Move Forward,

    Remember, 1992 and 2000 taught us that economic problems are either immediately the fault of the new president or remain the fault of the prior president for as many as 5 years, depending on what letter is after their name.

    Isn’t it funny how that works? I would have thought it was more complex than that, but partisan hacks have taught me otherwise.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2009 at 1432 hrs




26. The only way healthcare can be worse than it is now is if it is “free”.  Name for me one thing…just one…that the government does inexpensively.  And effectively.  I can get the same service I get at the DMV?  I don’t think so.  For that matter, name any social program that “works”.

    Further, I’m attached to right and wrong.  Nothing else.  Mine don’t change based on a whim.  It’s wrong to take from one at the point of a gun solely to give to another, for example.

    Give a rip about either party?  Hell no.  The lesser of two evils is evil.  It’s all about policy.  I don’t see The Chosen One coming up with a workable policy on the economy.  I see more of the failed Leftist policies of the past.  Frankly, over the last 8 years, both sides have practiced Big Government Liberalism.

    In fact, Former President Bush DID try to change the tone in Washington.  And the Democrats (and some Republicans) stuck it up his ass.  When he was my governor in Texas, he was regarded as a good and decent man.  By both sides.  as soon as he showed any leadership as President, he had to be destroyed.  But I ramble.

    Posted by Steve on January 24, 2009 at 1435 hrs




27. MoveForward -  I gotta give you an “A” for the effort you are taking in believing that as long as it is Obama increasing the deficit spending by trillions of dollars, we will get a different result than when it was Bush doing it.

    I’ll give you a hint - its the wrong thing to do regardless of what letter is after the President’s name.  I don’t think that Obama doing it will help the economy one bit.  But it certainly will saddle my kids with having to service said debt even further.  Per Obama’s own economic team, their spending proposals would increase deficit spending to 12% of the GDP.  Holy Crap Batman!!!  Try doing that at home and see how well it works.  Watch the video of the congressional hearings on the “stimulative” effect of the spending plan.  They have zero - none, zippo, zilch, nada - idea of jobs will even BE created.  The poor schmuck they sent to the hill could only shrug his shoulders.  How’s the confidence in hope and change now?

    I was one of those melting down the Congressional and Senatorial phone lines and e-mail servers when the original crap sandwich was being brewed in October telling them to vote it down.  Were you?

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2009 at 1535 hrs




28. Bush on the Constitution: ‘It’s just a goddamned piece of paper’

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2009 at 1537 hrs




29. MoveForward - I gotta give you an “A” for the effort you are taking in believing that as long as it is Obama increasing the deficit spending by trillions of dollars, we will get a different result than when it was Bush doing it.

    I am only saying that it is both sides and some on this thread need to stop pointing fingers. I don’t like the fact that we are spending our future generations money but there are differences in how it is being spent. The bank bailout was the first bi-partisan action in years and done for political clout. It would have been interesting if either McCain or Obama would have voted against it.
    To reiterate: BOTH SIDES are guilty!!! To place blame solely on Obama at this point is ridiculous. We need to have some hope that both sides will work to bring the economy back. Accountablity is the biggest difference in the spending plans.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2009 at 1549 hrs




30. You missed the point again.

    BOTH SIDES NEED TO STOP!!!

    Obama and his team have the opportunity, but are hell-bent on just upping the ante.  The justification?  Because “Bush spent money on Wall Street”. 

    Stupid, stupid, stupid reason…

    With no intervention at all, this thing will work itself out - not without pain, but probably faster. 

    I recommend you go try to read the bill in the House.  I honestly couldn’t get past 50 pages or so without becoming ill.  There is very little, if anything, in it that will do ANYTHING to “help” the economy.  It is however, laden with a bunch of Christmas Tree pork ornaments.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2009 at 1604 hrs




31. The only way healthcare can be worse than it is now is if it is “free”. 

    Healthy Wisconsin is not “free”. All employers and employees will have to pay a fair share. Your argument that it is free is sounding dumber and dumber the more it is repeated.

    It would not be run like the DMV either. You would pay your share and continue to choose your doctor. It would depend on your satisfaction with that doctor whether you want to change or not.

    Steve, I am glad you are attached to right and wrong, as long as right is right and left is wrong.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2009 at 1614 hrs




32. I recommend you go try to read the bill in the House.  I honestly couldn’t get past 50 pages or so without becoming ill.  There is very little, if anything, in it that will do ANYTHING to “help” the economy.  It is however, laden with a bunch of Christmas Tree pork ornaments.

    I am amazed you could get fifty pages into it, you are a better man than I.

    I understand where you are coming from JJ. This whole spend and spend some more atmosphere is going to dig us deeper. Comparing the bailouts though, the one with more oversight is the more responsible one (assuming either are responsible).
    Local officials are lining up to get their handouts for the upcoming package and I do not blame them. If our local officials did not try to get something for us then they are not doing their job. To turn your back on it means that it will get spent elsewhere and our future generations will still pay for it without any local benefit. Construction jobs are getting scarce and without the local projects, our construction workers will move out of state. I would encourage Scott Walker to get in line or risk Milwaukee falling farther behind.

    Right or wrong, this money is going to get spent and we all know it. To not take any on principal may be philosophically sound but it is not what will benefit the people who elected them. The bill will still come due someday but with nothing to show for it.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2009 at 1629 hrs




33. The presidential election has become like voting for Prom King.

    In this case, though, the American people actually support the policies of the prom king as opposed to the peons at the dance.  Even 74% of Republicans.

    Posted by folkbum on January 24, 2009 at 1638 hrs




34. If I was referring to Healthy Wisconsin (still a monumentally bad idea) I would have said so.  We will disagree on this, I’m sure.  Government mandated healthcare is nhot the answer.  It’s just plain wrong and creates more power in the hands of government.  If you’re ok with that, good for you.  I’m not.

    You still don’t know me and have no idea who I am and what I believe.  But continue to be smug in your self-righteous attachment to “no attachment”.  You are nothing mkore than the non-=conformist who conforms with other non-conformists.

    Take another bong hit, dude.

    Posted by Steve on January 24, 2009 at 1640 hrs




35. In fact, Former President Bush DID try to change the tone in Washington.  And the Democrats (and some Republicans) stuck it up his ass.

    I say that Bush did indeed succeed in changing the tone in Washington. I will not say that it was for the better. We can argue over the past but that does not help us in the future.

    Give a rip about either party?  Hell no.

    Since you made this statement I haven’t seen you make any attacks on the Republican Party (except a few nonconformists), as you do the Democrats. I think that you do give a rip about one party over the other.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2009 at 1703 hrs




36. Moveforward,

    What makes your arrogant p.o.s. ass think that I want to pay a dime for your healthcare?

    How about you man up (or woman up if that’s your gender) and take responsibility for yourself.  Leave me out of it.  Of course, I’m assuming that you’re an adult that’s actually interested in being responsible.  But since you seem to be a democrat, you obviously aren’t.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2009 at 2329 hrs




37. Yo, Gman, you’re already paying for healthcare for irresponsible uninsured people. Hospitals charge higher rates to patients with health insurance in order to subsidize the uninsured people who get all their health care at the emergency room (the most expensive, inefficient way of obtaining primary care, but the only one open to poor, uninsured individuals). One of the major reasons why health insurance rates have gone up so much in recent years is due to the increase in uninsured indigent patients.

    I’m beginning to understand why so many people are vehemently against a single-payer, government-financed health insurance system. They ignorantly think that the money they (and their employers) are currently paying for health care only funds their own health care, and that it is allocating resources in the most cost-efficient way possible.

    Markets don’t always work the way they are supposed to. When you have anti-competitive practices (like the AMA limiting the number of doctors certified each year) and a product that is a necessity, buyers have no market power.

    Posted by Ordinary Jill on January 25, 2009 at 1055 hrs




38. This whole string reads like a comedy bit (and a bad one at that).  Is this really a whole bunch of finger pointing and name calling about what a bad idea finger pointing and name calling is?

    Posted by Mike on January 25, 2009 at 1118 hrs




39. Healthy Wisconsin is not “free”. All employers and employees will have to pay a fair share. Your argument that it is free is sounding dumber and dumber the more it is repeated.

    It would not be run like the DMV either. You would pay your share and continue to choose your doctor. It would depend on your satisfaction with that doctor whether you want to change or not.

    Of course its not free.  Nothing ever is.

    If the government is so dead set on being involved in healthcare…  If SO many people want government healthcare… And if government run/mandated healthcare is going to save us ANY money from the private system we have now, I have a few suggestions that I’m sure any proponent who supports government healthcare would surely agree with:

    First, any citizen or company has a choice to participate or not participate.

    Second, any and all costs are borne by those participating in the system.  Anyone who chooses not to participate in the system doesn’t pay for it. (directly or indirectly).  And by that I mean that there is no taxation of other sources to pay for healthcare.  If this “government system” is going to provide all the efficiencies that its proponents say it will, and the quality of care won’t suffer and if so many people need it/want it, then surely it should be able to support itself by those (companies and individuals) who choose to participate in it.

    If this government system will truly have all the benefits that its proponents claim it will have with none of the side-effects that skeptics of government healthcare worry about then I can’t see why anyone wouldn’t agree to these parameters.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 25, 2009 at 1235 hrs




40. What makes your arrogant p.o.s. ass think that I want to pay a dime for your healthcare?
    How about you man up (or woman up if that’s your gender) and take responsibility for yourself.  Leave me out of it.  Of course, I’m assuming that you’re an adult that’s actually interested in being responsible.  But since you seem to be a democrat, you obviously aren’t.

    Gman, what makes you think I don’t take care of my own? I think that your little rant shows your colors. You stooped to percieving me as a p.o.s. when you are clueless to who I am.

    I am interested in spending my health care dollars more wisely. The cost of health care is eating in to our personal budgets as much as our mortgages in some cases. I am tired of giving it to insurance companies that build Taj Mahal office buildings and hire hoards of people to give people a hard time before finally (hopefully) paying the claim. We can do better.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 25, 2009 at 1359 hrs